March 17, 2010

"I want justice," he said after a meeting at the Pentagon, where 188 people were killed last Tuesday when an airliner crashed into the building. "And there's an old poster out West that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.' "

He then seemed to temper his remarks by adding: "All I want and America wants is to see them brought to justice. That's what we want."

The blunt, Texas-style rhetoric, delivered off the cuff, came a day after Vice-President Dick Cheney said he would willingly accept bin Laden's "head on a platter". Some advisers said that although the comments might be popular in America, they would not be welcomed by European or Arab allies.

Mr Bush had just received a briefing on the call-up of military reservists and plans for Operation Noble Eagle, the name given to the "war on terrorism" that the president has vowed to prosecute.

Striking a sombre tone, he told Americans they should expect further casualties. "The United States military is ready to defend freedom at any cost," he said. "We will win the war and there will be costs."

Bush was criticized harshly over the years for saying "Wanted: Dead or Alive." At the end of his term, Bush expressed regret about talking like that:

"I regret saying some things I shouldn't have said," Bush told CNN's Heidi Collins when asked to reflect on his regrets over his two terms as president. "Like 'dead or alive' and 'bring 'em on.' My wife reminded me that, hey, as president of the United States, be careful what you say."

"The reality is that we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama Bin Laden - he will never appear in an American courtroom," the nation's chief enforcement officer told a stunned House hearing....

GOP congressmen tried to pummel the nation's top law enforcement official over giving terrorists the same constitutional rights in civilian courts as American defendants, such as the now-unlikely lower Manhattan trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Holder said terrorists are treated like the murderers they are in federal courts - or, more specifically, "like Charles Manson."

When Rep. John Culberson (R-Tex.) said that if Bin Laden himself were arrested, it would be absurd to give him the same due process afforded Manson, Holder erupted.

Charges he coddles terrorists get his "blood boiling," the attorney general conceded....

Holder repeated - slowly - to the Texas congressman that "the possibility simply does not exist" that Bin Laden will ever be arraigned in any court....

"The possibility of capturing him alive is infinitesimal - he will be killed by us or he will be killed by his own people," Holder said.

So, Bush, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, called for the capture of bin Laden "Dead or Alive," but Holder, with 9 years to meditate on the right way to deal with the situation, assures us that bin Laden will not be taken alive. What has brought Holder to this heated state of mind? Not the death of thousands of Americans. The threat to his political prestige. It gets his "blood boiling" that he is attacked. The fact that we were attacked did not loom large when he decided to try KSM in federal court New York City. But when that decision was savaged, he changed his tone.

He needed to show how tough he was, and now he's resorting to saying that bin Laden won't be taken alive. Oh, he concedes an "infinitesimal" possibility. What does that mean? If bin Laden openly surrendered or he was trapped and utterly defenseless, we couldn't gun him down. And then what would Holder do? Read Miranda rights to bin Laden's not-yet-a-corpse? Try him like a Manson? Ah, but Holder doesn't want you to think about that. He suddenly wants to strike the Dick Cheney bring-me-his-head-on-a-platter pose... until we stop calling him weak, his blood cools down, and he can get back to lecturing us about America's abstract ideals.

I seem to recall that was actually a war crime. and it bluntly seems foolish. I want us to keep bin Laden alive at least long enough to waterboard the bastard and find out what he knows. Then after that, if he is "shot trying to escape," yeah, i won't care.

But its more than a little hypocritical to say "we don't torture our enemies. We kill them, even if they are surrendering."

Sigh. i wish we had two parties that was serious about the war on terror.

I would never question the veracity of liberals to be violent and tough when it matters. They are not pacifists. However, the problems leftists have is identifying who the enemy is. Holder may make some short term statement about gettin Bin Ladin, but that does not change the fact that he and Obama still see the American people and their traditionalism/conservatism and bitterness to cling to guns and religion generally as the enemy.

Rev. Mr. LaSalle: I will read over the dead now. My Bible, please. Mister, uh...Judge Roy Bean: Bean.Rev. Mr. LaSalle: Bean?Judge Roy Bean: Roy Bean. Judge Roy Bean. I am the law in this area.Rev. Mr. LaSalle: What has qualified you as such?Judge Roy Bean: I know the law. And I have spent my entire life in its flagrant disregard. But I had never killed a man before. Oh, I had shot at some... in self-defense or blind fright, but I never hit anyone. So God must have directed my bullets. Why, he even sent an angel to deliver this weapon [gun]Rev. Mr. LaSalle: Just how do you intend to dispense this law?Judge Roy Bean: With this [gun] and a rope.Rev. Mr. LaSalle: And will you rely again on the grace of God?Judge Roy Bean: Well, I intend to[gun] practice and give Him some help. Get on with the reading.

that makes me think about a joke i used to say during the 08 election. i said of all the people running for president, including people merely seeking the nomination at some time, third parties, write ins, etc. John McCain was the most likely to catch bin Laden. i don't mean that McCain would say to special forces "go get him" and they would. i mean McCain was the most likely to put on the war paint, parachute into Wazirastan, find bin Laden, chop off his head and put it on a pike on the White House lawn.

heh.

I disagreed with McCain on alot of things, but i liked his stance on terrorist killing.

Btw, on a related point, in the game Mercenaries 2, they created a free downloadable thing where you could play as either Obama or Sarah Palin. So for instance, you can make her shoot a grapple onto a helicopter, pull open the door, beat the pilot's head on the dashboard and then throw him out, all while in the air. It was pretty awesome.

Some asked why McCain wasn't included and the answer was "because he lived it, man."

> Keith O will declare that he will eulogize Osama as the worst dead person in the world.

You know that is not realistic. The worst people in the world are people like Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, etc. i mean those people have committed the unspeakably evil act of disagreeing with progressives. Seriously, what has bin Laden ever done to even be in the same leagaue as people who merely peacefully disagree with Olby on political matters. Get some perspective, man.

/sarc

Joking aside, anyone who runs a "worst person in the world" feature and names someone who is not a dictator or a terrorist, is an idiot. Therefore, Olby is an idiot.

Anytime a Democrat attempts something Republicans perfected, it's outrageous. Like the self executing rule Republicans used over a hundred times that Democrats are now using once.

So it was okay when Bush/Chaney were making comments like this? You mean the left didn't loose it's collective mind that our leaders were making simplistic cowboy statements? That's not quite how I remember it.

As far as the "deemed to be passed" (slimy and greasy and you know it), please point to a situation in which the GOP used this procedure under a complete lack of bipartisan support. Let's compare apples to apples, you know?

One further thing on that atrocity of a procedure...the expressed implication of it's use will be a GO AHEAD AND USE IT IN THE FUTURE ON ANYTHING stamp. If the dems go this route, instead of the vote they promised over and over again, it will be used as a cudgel for the next couple of decades against them.

In any event Holder doesn't have to worry about Osama since he's been worm food for some time. Until the Islamoasshole puts his ugly mug on a video like the rest of his jihadist pals do, I'll rest on my belief he's a brown stain on a cave wall somewhere.

i wouldn't be offended if Holder just stopped pretending he and obama were somehow better than the republicans.

i would also add that we should be trying to take bin laden alive for intelligence purposes. but as i said, i have no problem with them killing him when they are satisfied they have learned as much as can be gleened from him.

What lies at the bottom of all of their lies about what they would or wouldn't do is-

Democrats have not caught up with terrorism, they don't get it, they don't believe it and they incessantly underestimate it.

Now because of the terrorists willingness to constantly establish new lows, and because of technology a terrorist will and can attack US civilians in US airspace.

What do the Democrats do?

Reward them with US citizenship!

Any future enemy that does wear a uniform and does not attack US civilians on US soil will be putting themselves at a severe disadvantage compared to terrorists. Any enemy that follows the path forged by Osama will be more richly rewarded than any other enemy of United States that has gone before them.

Obama and his Department of Justice have richly rewarded that pattern of behavior and have all but guaranteed its recurrence.

I never minded those Bush remarks. To me they were how the country felt and were honest and properly defiant after being attacked, but they didn't imply uncontrolled rage and a resort to lawlessness. Holder's remarks are truly embarrassing, not the American standard and below us in all the ways Bush's were inaccurately portrayed. Yes, I do miss Bush and his respect for his country and it's standards which are only seen as political obstacles with this new administration.

When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.

Yeah, sadly, I knew all of that already. I asked you to point to one that had zero bipartisan support.

Not once throughout the entire year did they mention this as a possibility. If their constituents wanted this bill, they wouldn't need to twist every last arm and try to pull this crap. The electorate is overwhelmingly against passage of this bill and the manner in which it has been handled.

This is all a mute point until the CBO comes back with the scoring, which we all know is rigged in the first place, but that seems to be what the Dem leadership is waiting on.

Funny, though. If it were not rigged, why the shell game with the taxes and benefits?

If there were true bipartisan support, and genuine consensus between the two parties, there wouldn't be a need for it.

Or if your own part which enjoys such a huge Congressional majority could have gotten its act together there wouldn't have been any need for it.

You guys are pretty pathetic when even with a 77 House majority you have to resort to this. Then again for someone who thinks Adams and Hancock were smugglers and the participants in the Boston Tea Party were terrorists I suppose pathetic is par for the course with your side.

This is the problem with the Dems and Repubs. There is no happy middle ground.

The Dems will occasionally talk tough, but you know in the end that they will not do what is necessary to protect us. Half the time they agree with the bad guys.

The Repubs love to have military bases in more than 100 countries "projecting power" around the world, are eager to start wars where none are really needed, but will probably protect us, if they don't motivate too many enemies in the meantime.

"They bring one of yours to the hospital, you bring two of theirs to the morgue."

This administration proposed show trials. I mean, what more do you need to know about these people? Barack Obama is personally approving, via Presidential Order, the murder of foreign citizens, in violation of the US Constitution, International Law and US law.

He's a garden variety murderer.

Arrest him. Give him a fair trial and then if he's convicted of his crimes, hang him just like his namesake Saddam Hussein.

When Republicans take over the country again, there had better be an accounting - by the law, using the law. Justice demands that these illegal activities being undertaken by the Obama Administration be investigated and those responsible held to account.

I think Holder effectively has already killed his own future, but it is interesting that he ever progressed to the AG position. He does not seem terribly bright or capable. He thinks it is bright for the AG to effectively rule out the possibility of capturing Obama alive? That is a level of intelligence proper in cartoons, not the AG. He thinks it is wise to compare legal proceedings against terrorists with criminal charges against Manson? Manson is a guy who made a mockery of the justice system and secured the reversal of his death sentence.

The only reasonable conclusion is that Holder is: (1) fiercely partisan and self centered; and (2) not very bright.

I can't wait for the day that the Liberals start waterboarding numerous prisoners and then attempt to defend their actions by saying that the Republicans once did it.

The Left's hypocrisy on things like self-executing laws should really discredit everything the left is doing and saying about the entire health care bill. How can you believe anything they say about it. Today they say it will save money and increase care, tomorrow they say it was never meant to do those things.

Obama is one of the greatest hyopcrites-liars in America history. It all started with reverend Wright and it goes on and on from there. They guy repeatedly lies about the health care bill from the stump. It's really gross.

WTH? What kind of idiot would object to taking Osama dead or alive? If we get the chance to hit him with a predator are we going to pass on it?

Holder on the other hand... He wants to read Miranda warnings to the lower level terrorists and try them in civilian courts but he also wants to kill Osama on the spot even if he gives up peacefully to avoid the civilian courts. WTH? For an AG he sure seems to make up a lot of shit as he goes along. There is certainly no legal principle on which he is basing his opinions. He is just like his boss. Holder will do as Holder likes.

Dems, they can't even get it right when they try to imitate Republicans.

It's remarkable. Obama is one of the all time big liars. Every day he is out there telling outright lies, distorting other people's statements, raising imaginary strawmen and debating false choices.

Where is the press on this?

Hannity is right. The press is dead. Bloggers do a better job.

Sad.

It seems like you can take most of his speeches, go line by line, and pick out one lie after another.

If it were Bush or Cheney, the press would lead with it every day.

Speaking of the press, they mostly forgot about the war(s) and how terrible they are now that Obama is running them. I guess drones killing civilians is only bad when Repubs are in office. I guess it doesn't matter how many of our youngsters come back in boxes, as long as the Dems are in charge.

What would absolutely mess up Holders limited world view would be Osama deciding that he can absolutely shred the US on a global stage over the course of years by:

TURNING HIMSELF IN AT THE AMERICAN EMBASSY IN ISLAMABAD OR CONSULATES IN KARACHI, LAHORE...

Bin Laden comes up with a bodyguard of Islamists and an ACLU lawyer or two, and a videographer recording Binnie was alive and healthy when taken into custody. And Binnie claims he was simply a soldier following the law of the land in Afghanistan and Pakistan at the time - Sharia. After formally declaring war in 1997.

That he only targeted items of key American strength and avoided other targets suggested by KSM like nuke power plants and dams and chemical factories. He struck the same sort of targets Clinton bombed in Serbia and Bush hit in Iraq - military and leadership command and control, and financial centers.That the WTC was full of a cabal of bankers and financiers that were destroying Muslim economies - who later turned their wrath on the US financial system. A valid target.He would have 5-8 years in pretrial workup and teams of dozens of liberal and progressive Jewish lawyers proud to have the privilege of defending him. He would have Sharia lawyers too, and bundles of statements and videos his lawyers and/or his Hollywood media/book/ and film rights agents could dole out over those 5-8 years assuming that Binnie is legally stifled from having news conferences in jail or email with reporters...And discovery....

No, what Binnie could do if he wished to be a great martyr and cost the US another billion and 5-8 years of global pain is to just surrender as a martyr..and have some fun with just how legitimate the US civilian justice system is.

Considering Obama's been authorizing non-judicial executions by drone (with the attendant civilian casualties) pretty much from day one, with nary a peep from the vast majority of progressives, their moral high ground is an anthill.

It somewhat understates my assessment of Holder's position - nonsense! -- but it makes me think, none since when? When is the last time we had an AG so publicly and thoroughly subvert the judicial system? How is this guy still in office? With the handling of the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case, the KSM trial absurdity, and now this -- how long is he going to be allowed to remain? He's an embarrassment.

Aside from the Liberty affair, the degree to which Hancock was engaged in smuggling, which was widespread in the colonies, has been questioned. Given the clandestine nature of smuggling, records are naturally scarce.[45] If Hancock was a smuggler, no documentation of this has been found. John W. Tyler identified 23 smugglers in his study of more than 400 merchants in revolutionary Boston, but found no written evidence that Hancock was one of them.[46] Biographer William Fowler concluded that while Hancock was probably engaged in some smuggling, most of his business was legitimate, and his reputation as the "king of the colonial smugglers" is a myth without foundation.[47]

Garage, is that your lame attempt at being a Found Father Troofer?

There was a time when you were actually sane. Did Hillary's loss really have some lobotomizing effect on your brain?

it is true that republicans used the "deemed" approach before. Its also true that democrats sued, claiming it is unconstitutional. So a pox on both parties.

that doesn't change the fact that it actually is unconstitutional. And pointless. do the democrats thinks it helps them to present a "i voted for it before i voted against it" BS response?

The common independant voter will say, well, how did this law become a law anyway? "Well, we deemed it." And you voted to deem it to be law? "Yes." And if a majority of representatives didn't deem it to be passed, it wouldn't be a law, right? "Yes." then how exactly are you not responsible for it?

Btw, exit question. Given that pelosi is on record saying it is unconstitutional, isn't she violating her oath of office to use it, then. And don't say the courts upheld it. They didn't. They just refused to hear it. Which is something that has got to change.

We paid for that territory with something a lot more expensive than green backs.

We lost a lot more soldiers than necessary in WW II-my understanding is that when people complain about too many bases overseas-they usually are focusing on Europe, and are concentrated at the Democrat Underground for some reason.

So let's do Europe.

A lot of bases in Europe are supply depots, radar stations and support facilities-the best hospital we can get our own troops to where they won't be vulnerable and put the other troops at risk is in Germany.

We never really collected too much debt back from Europe-it's a small price for them to pay in return.

Plus-I think we kept the giant potential of Russia during the Cold War neutralized with a small efficiency of bases and troops relative to the potential longterm costs.

I'd rather pay a ton of tax dollars to have the damn projection-which prevents the build up of hope in our enemies than one extra 20 year olds life lost-because we were unprepared for even half of the worst case scenario.

But that's just me-I value a guy or gal who's willing to put their life on the line because they believe in something bigger than themselves. I think America should value them in return.

We spend more of our budget on damn Social Security than we do Defense.

Go to federalbudget.com and take a look at that-then tell me the prjection of force isn't worth it.

Yeah, I thought this was totally inappropriate for an AG. Bush's statement was a bit over the top, but he was speaking as an elected political leader. Holder is speaking as a law enforcement officer--he shouldn't be saying stuff like this. But the left will let this one go, just as it always does. "Dead or alive"? What an ugly American, a cowboy! "Dead"? Er, Holder's a Democrat, right?

"The reality is that we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama Bin Laden - he will never appear in an American courtroom," the nation's chief enforcement officer told a stunned House hearing...."

The simplest explanation for this apparent blunder is Knox's (9:42 AM). Or he really is stupid. However, it also seems possible he's seen intelligence that Osama's dead.

So typical that Mahal is making excuses on Holder's behalf--Waaah, but the Republicans do the same thing!

I know this may be beyond your comprehension, but Holder is a law enforcement office--he should not be endorsing lawlessness or extrajudicial conduct. It's fine if he says "It's likely that OBL will be killed in the field; but if he's brought in we're ready to prosecute him."

Even Bush allowed for the possibility that OBL would be brought in "alive," even though as a political leader and head of state it would have been okay for him to say "We are going to kill this SOB."

Holder is turning out to be completely unfit for his role. His guarantee that KSM would be convicted and executed was likewise inappropriate.

Presidents and other political figures can sometimes strut like professional wrestlers, but AGs never.

We'll have to disagree on this one. If you read my other posts, you'll know I'm not hanging out at the "Democrat Underground." LOL. Pretty sure I would not be welcome there. They think that libertarian/conservative types like me are scum.

However, it also seems possible he's seen intelligence that Osama's dead.

That's been my working belief for the last 9 years. The man could hardly keep his mug off camera and since Tora Bora all we get are audio tapes while his #2 and that turncoat American jackass crank out some Islamogibberish video about every 3-4 months.

If he was alive he would have been putting out videos of him giving Bush the finger a long time ago.

That still doesn't mean Holder is an idiot. I'm still waiting for some Obama appointee to demonstrate they have a higher intellect than my socks.

The Wiki piece you pasted said smuggling was widespread (which it was) and that Hancock was probably engaged in smuggling. He owned a huge shipping company, and one of his ships was seized by the British for smuggling, was charged for it, and became a hero in the colonies for it. How does this help your case? You have to ask yourself why colonists urged on by Hancock and Samuel Adams staged the tea party protest when the taxes on the tea were lowered to the point that it was undercutting the colonists smuggled tea prices from the Dutch. It couldn't have been from high British taxes on tea.

Oy I just hate fratricide over things the Democrats are equal to or worse on than Republicans.

You're a Libertarian?

On another thread sometime-maybe you can explain to me how Megan McCardle (or however the heck you spell it)-who's a Libertarian economist who somehow found a way to vote for Obama-is not a complete idiot.

She's making you guys look bad- and Instapundit keeps a linkin' to her.

Or worse that guy that calls himself a Liberaltarian that voted for Obama...can't even remember his name-Will somethin' or other.

On another thread sometime-maybe you can explain to me how Megan McCardle (or however the heck you spell it)-who's a Libertarian economist who somehow found a way to vote for Obama-is not a complete idiot.

She's making you guys look bad- and Instapundit keeps a linkin' to her.

Or worse that guy that calls himself a Liberaltarian that voted for Obama...can't even remember his name-Will somethin' or other.

Ha. There is no way I could ever explain how a libertarian could vote for the big zero. Don't really know anything about "Megan," but I know a lot of people self-identify as libertarian who I view ... differently.

No such animal as a liberaltarian. I used to think that liberal/progressives and libertarians could meet and agree on many issues. I gave up on that long ago. The liberal/progressive approach, even when it happens to agree with a libertarian position on a particular issue, is simply too much from the other end of the freedom-fascism spectrum.

If there were true bipartisan support, and genuine consensus between the two parties, there wouldn't be a need for it.

Why does that remind me of this rule:In order to be grounded, I've got to be crazy. And I must be crazy to keep flying. But if I ask to be grounded, that means I'm not crazy anymore, and I have to keep flying.

And as for Holder, I'm still trying to reconcile the "show trials in New York" and the now "Miranda rights for a dead guy" statement as consistent with "The rule of law"

Yet more data to support the theory that the KSM show trial in NYC was actually intended to provide a public forum to dump graphic and sensationalized EIT information without Obama or Holder being identified with the document dump. KSM getting off because he was 'tortured' was just a side benefit. Putting OBL on trial wouldn't serve the same purpose, so they just plan to cap his ass.

"...You have to ask yourself why colonists urged on by Hancock and Samuel Adams staged the tea party protest when the taxes on the tea were lowered to the point that it was undercutting the colonists smuggled tea prices from the Dutch. It couldn't have been from high British taxes on tea."

No. You don't have to 'ask yourself'. The only thing you'd get in response is whatever you want to believe in the first place.

You are determined to follow the Marxist interpretation of history; if persons A, B, and C, did something claiming to follow their ideals, they must have been lying/hypocrites. Because deep down it's all about class/economic interests. It has to be.

Following your formulation 'you have to ask yourself' why the revolution broke out in New England. You know, New England, home of the Puritans. Those same Puritans that resented meddling in their affairs. Because there is far more to human beings that their immediate economic interests.

OTOH, if they know he's dead, there's little risk in them standing behind their misguided ideas about "justice". They could say they'd Mirandize and try him knowing they'd never actually have to fight that fight.

Not to worry about this trifle! Obama says that our insurance premiums will go down "3000 per cent" after ObamaCare passes. And we're supposed to believe them regarding the war against terrorism? Please.

He owned a huge shipping company, and one of his ships was seized by the British for smuggling, was charged for it, and became a hero in the colonies for it.

I suppose you missed this part With John Adams serving as his lawyer, Hancock was prosecuted in a highly publicized trial by a vice admiralty court, which had no jury and did not always allow the defense to cross-examine the witnesses.[40] After dragging out for nearly five months, the proceedings against Hancock were dropped without explanation.[41

How does this help your case?

See above.

You have to ask yourself why colonists urged on by Hancock and Samuel Adams staged the tea party protest when the taxes on the tea were lowered to the point that it was undercutting the colonists smuggled tea prices from the Dutch. It couldn't have been from high British taxes on tea.

Garage you are the textbook example of a little bit of knowledge is dangerous. Good thing for you its only history and not being an electrician. Here let me help you out. It wasn’t about the damn tax, it was about who had the authority to levy the tax that is, the British Parliamenet or colonial legislatures. In other words, garage it was about principle and not money. A concept idiot progressives I thought were so enamored with. I swear debating history with a liberal is like kicking a small dog.

You know what would be interesting -it would never happen, but it would be great to watch- would be for Bin Laden to show up in California and hand himself over to local Police authorities with the press present.

You know, get him in through Mexico or some other border.

I'd really like to see how it played out. I mean... if he tried it in Texas or New York, they'd already be publishing obituaries. However, in a Liberal state as far from the WTC crater as you can get, with no death penalty where any press/publicity is good press.

"Watch what you say" is not any sort of disagreement with what you say.

It's the equivalent of "don't get caught."

But really...

Althouse points out a profound relationship between the last administration and this one. The last was savaged for sounding too Cowboy. This one, starting during Obama's campaign, tries really hard to act and sound like hard-asses in an effort to correct their own image and what people think of them.

Holder isn't riled up over Bin Laden, he's riled up that *he* was criticized.

Again, statists like Garage Mahal cannot conceive of ordinary people resisting a government that hands out cheap tea. The other commenters are correct that this is a very Marxian view, where everything is about class and economics. Surely poor people wouldn't be engaged about something so pedestrian as liberty when it would be against their economic self-interest!

The great thing about people like Mahal is that we already know he can be bought off rather cheaply.

Hey Mahal, I got some cheap tea here if you vote Republican next election. No go? What's the matter, are your strings being pulled by evil smugglers?

You have to ask yourself why colonists urged on by Hancock and Samuel Adams staged the tea party protest when the taxes on the tea were lowered to the point that it was undercutting the colonists smuggled tea prices from the Dutch. It couldn't have been from high British taxes on tea.

People who forget history, etc... Please see the Sons of Liberty. It wasn't one protest, it wasn't about tea.

Poor Eric. He's painted himself and his fellow liberals into a corner. They never thought about the problems of prosecuting terrorists seriously when they were intent on destroying George W. Bush. Actually having to govern is a bitch, ain't it?

But that's been the problem with liberals all along. They can't resist twisting logic to get the outcome they want, which is why our courts are now the third political branch instead of the only judicial one.

"I'd really like to see how it played out. I mean... if he tried it in Texas or New York, they'd already be publishing obituaries."

I dunno. Based on what's been going on at Ground Zero, NY would probably still be arguing out what racially- and gender- inclusive murals to have the NEA-subsidized artists paint on the side of the gibbet with the feces of oppressed Palestinians...

I am marveling over the stupidity of the debate on whether hancock or adams were smugglers.

First, do not cite Wikipedia. Only idiots trust untrustworthy sources.

Second, unless someone is caught and convicted, how exactly do you think you can prove someone did a crime that is by its very nature clandestine, 200+ years after the fact?

Third, even if they were smugglers, that doesn't necessarily mean that their support for revolution was insincere. Couldn't their attitude have been, "since these taxes are unjust, I will undermine them by smuggling"?

Fourth, how exactly does fomenting revolution help their smuggling business? Both men were enthusiastic supporters of revolution, Hancock famously writing his name larger than others on the Declaration of Independence joking it was so King George III could read it without his glasses on. If successful, the revolution would have ended any smuggling operation to get around British laws and it would be uncertain that America would make their duties nearly high enough to make smuggling profitable.

Fifth, it is retarded to argue that any of the signers of the declaration of independence were simply self-interested. Do you have any idea what the penalty was for treason back then? It was to be drawn (that is, have your intestines pulled out), hung (without actually killing you) and quartered (having your limbs ripped off your body while still alive).

Yeah, that is right, pretty much what happened to Mel Gibson in Braveheart, only they don’t usually do you the courtesy of chopping your head off before they rip your arms and legs off your body. And I am no doctor, but I am pretty sure it is physically impossible to shout “FREEEEDOOOOMMMMM!!!!!!” once your guts have been ripped out. Maybe you could sort of wheeze it out, I don’t know. I mean I love the movie to death, but you have to take it as about 90% fiction; but that is one of the few details they got right—the precise thing they did to Wallace to kill him.

That is what literally every person signing that document faced and it kind of outweighs any mere financial interest. Say what you will about the brutality of British anti-treason laws (and I do condemn them, obviously), but it had the virtue of ensuring that only the truly committed engaged in it.

For some reason it has suddenly become fashionable to miss the whole point of the revolution, of phrases like, “no taxation without representation.” As for the tea tax, the argument was that the tax was put in just to establish a precedent, allowing the British to tax without representation. Precedents are actually very important in the common law, so while normally slippery slope arguments are invalid, here they have a valid point.